View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 16, 2012


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for April: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. 


Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Pust advised that she was unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to illness.


2.         Approve Agenda

On behalf of staff, City Manager Malinen requested removal of Consent Item #7.f entitled, “Approve Bids for Fire Station Project Bid Package #2.”


Willmus moved, Johnson seconded approval of the agenda as amended.


                                    Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.      

            Nays: None.

Interview Applicants for Police Civil Service Commission

            City Manager Malinen noted that Mr. Brad VenderVegt (SP?), applicant for this Commission was not present; and staff had been unable to make telephone contact with him regarding tonight’s interview.


Discussion ensued regarding appointment without interview, future appointment, or opening applications again; with consensus that City Staff attempt to contact the applicant and the interview and appointment could be held at the April 23, 2012 regular meeting.


3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.            Eugene Bahnemann, 2656 N Lexington Avenue

Mr. Bahnemann encouraged citizens of Roseville to pass by City Hall and look at “beautiful” prairie landscape.  Mr. Bahnemann opined that the prairie grass looked ridiculous; and also expressed frustration with the inability of his hearing device to work at tonight’s meeting.


4.            Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report

Councilmember Willmus noted that, over the weekend, he had attended the 623 Foundation Festival at HarMar Mall.  Councilmember Willmus stated that this annual event was well-attended, and highlighted a display of student artwork, performance by various bands, entertainment via American Idol, and overall was provided for a fun evening.  Councilmember Willmus encouraged residents to continue to support these fundraising events on behalf of the 623 Foundation.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that this was the second annual event, and was well done.


Mayor Roe announced an upcoming Community Dialogue on Elder Abuse, co-sponsored by the Roseville and Shoreview Human Rights Commissions, scheduled at the Shoreview Community Center on April 23, 2012 from 3:00 – 5:00 pm.


Mayor Roe announced the annual Roseville Clean-up Day on April 28, 2012 from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm, with drop offs at the Dale Street entrance to Central Park.


Mayor Roe provided an update on the due diligence of the NSCC and the three (3) year franchise renewal process and the needs ascertainment study, specifically for media and communication needs within the ten (10) city consortium making up the NSCC.  Mayor Roe reported on the strategic planning efforts of the Board as an outgrowth of those efforts; and development of a Mission Statement for the Access Corporation/C-TV at a recent workshop.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe advised that results would be available through the NSCC website, as well as potentially to individual city councils for their approval.


5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            Approve Minutes of April 9, 2012 Meeting

Councilmember Roe noted a bench handout from Councilmember McGehee, attached hereto and made a part hereof, of various changes to her comments at the April 9, 2012 meeting minutes, one pages 10, 11 and 12, as noted.


Mayor Roe asked that approval of the meeting minutes include staff’s verification of the correct time of adjournment.


Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 9, 2012 meeting as amended.


                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.     

                        Nays: None.


7.            Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         


ACH Payments







Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.     

                        Nays: None.


b.            Set Public Hearing to Consider approving the change from a 3.2 On Sale and Wine License to an On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Byerly’s

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, scheduling a Public Hearing for May 14, 2012 to consider approving/denying the change of the requested liquor license for calendar year 2012.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.     

                        Nays: None.


c.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000



d.            Approve Appointments to Variance Board

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, ratifying the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners John Gisselquist, Michael Boguszewski, Peter Strohmeier, and Jeff Lester (alternate) as the Planning Commission members appointed to serve as the Variance Board from May 3, 2012 to April 3, 2013.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.     

                        Nays: None.


e.            Approve Agreement between Minnesota Commercial Railway and the City of Roseville for Work at Long Lake Railroad Crossing

At the request of Councilmember Johnson for the benefit of the public, City Manager Malinen clarified that this railroad crossing was in the industrial area on Long Lake Road, immediately south of County Road B.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of an agreement between the City of Roseville and the Minnesota Commercial Railway (Attachment A) for work at the Long Lake Road Railroad Crossing.


Roll Call

                        Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.     

                        Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


12.         General Ordinances for Adoption


13.         Presentations


a.            Receive State of the District Presentation – Mounds View School District No. 621

Superintendent Dan Hoverman and District No. 621 School Board Member Amy Jones provided this presentation.


Superintendent Hoverman, via visual display, highlighted the District’s Mission and Vision that served as the basis for all annual planning for the Board and their strategic directions.


Ms. Jones reviewed those strategic directions, which included financial stability and management, academic excellence/safe environment, excellence in governance, leadership instruction and engagement.


Superintendent Hoverman reviewed the District Operational Plan (DOP) Priority Goals for 2011/12 emphasizing improved school and home communications, and successful contract negotiations.


Superintendent Hoverman reviewed demographic changes and enrollment trends from 1990 to present of K-12 students, various trends observed, and an increase in enrollment and subsequent funding, with availability of housing stock having significant implications on that enrollment.  Superintendent Hoverman reviewed the District’s investment in students, with 77 cents of every dollar supporting student instruction and support.



Ms. Jones reviewed fund balances of the District, attributing those favorable balances to the Board’s conservative budgeting, and using legislative funding tools as they became available; however, she noted the challenges in that legislative decision-making and their timing to decisions for the District.


Superintendent Hoverman reviewed the Districts emphasis on educational equity and student achievement regardless of demographic changes.  Superintendent Hoverman reviewed 2008-2011 ACT stores, with the School District participation in a free administration of the ACT on-site, thanks to a grant received from the Metropolitan Council’s Education Foundation.  Superintendent Hoverman noted that, according to recent U. S. News & World Report rankings, the Mounds View High School system had been ranked in the silver category.


Several brief videos were shown to support STEAM efforts for science, technology, engineering, arts, and math student achievement at the middle school level.  Superintendent Hoverman noted the goal of closing the gaps by providing opportunity, expectation, aspiration, and achievement with an emphasis on post-secondary success planning for all students.  One of these efforts included offering students the opportunity to achieve their AA degree along with their High School graduation certificates, at the school’s cost, to encourage post-secondary education.


For additional information, contact:; subscribe to e-newsletters



Councilmember Johnson commended the District on this interesting and pro-active idea for the compression of grade 9-14 education and graduating High School students with a college-level AA degree; and questioned how they had modeled this program.


Superintendent Hoverman advised that there were few other models, with the exception of a similar program in TX; however, he noted that the Irondale Campus was a hybrid model targeted to the middle student demographic.  Superintendent Hoverman advised that students would normally need to leave the campus to participate in such a program; however, he praised the cooperative efforts of Anoka-Ramsey for the participation, with the only cost to the Mounds View School District for collaborating teacher/mentor costs, estimated to be an absolute maximum amount of $60,000 annually.


Ms. Jones noted the success and achievement of the goal in finding significant interest for post-secondary education from students previously not considering it, as well as the ACT options, empowering students in their future job and career choices.

Councilmember McGehee thanked Superintendent Hoverman and Ms. Jones for their excellent report and impressive program.


Councilmember Willmus concurred; and expressed appreciation for the District focusing on trade skills for future student employment and the efforts to enhance their skill set.


Superintendent Hoverman underscored that no programming efforts were taken from the top 20% or lower 20% of the student population; but the purpose was provide students with the highest preparation possible to allow them to make good choices.


Mayor Roe noted the value of students being able to stay on campus for the post-secondary education, both for them and their families, thereby adding to their comfort level of learning and avoiding major transitions.  Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation of these programs and efforts.


Superintendent Hoverman expressed appreciation to the City of Roseville over the years; and offered the District’s ongoing interest in pursuing other collaborative efforts.


b.         Receive Arterial Rapid Bus Transit Presentation

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz introduced Metro Transit’s Transitway Project Manager Charles Carlson.


Mr. Carlson summarized the recent Arterial Transitway Corridors Study of eleven (11) major corridors in the metropolitan area under discussion for enhanced transit: light rail, streetcar or other high amenity transit options; however, he noted the challenge of some of those corridors with narrow streets compared with other corridors already in play (e.g. University Avenue).


Mr. Carlson reviewed traditional roadway space allocations; proposed solutions to those corridor challenges; estimated travel time savings with rapid bus transit for sample corridors; station configurations, prototypes and features for this premium service; and comparisons with other regions.


Mr. Carlson reviewed anticipated ridership results, estimated to increase by 40% -86%; and the average cost of $31 Million for engineering, larger vehicles, stations and signals; and a contingency fund.    Mr. Carlson reviewed evaluation criteria, including their technical score versus readiness factors, for the eleven (11) corridor concepts; with the Snelling Avenue corridor receiving 75 out of 100 points, with the highest ranked corridor at 81%.  Some of that criteria included growth, customer experience, integration, cost, and mobility.




Mr. Carlson advised that preliminary recommendations for potential corridor implementation in the near future included whether those corridors were about to be studied for other transit modes, at which time an advanced study toward implementation would be considered.   Those two (2) corridors ready to implement in the near future included the Snelling Avenue corridor and the West Seventh Street Corridor.  Mr. Carlson noted that the Snelling Avenue corridor was 9.7 miles, with twenty-one (21) stations, with an estimated $26.8 million capital costs based on 2011 dollars.


During the final phase of the transit study, Mr. Carlson reviewed the efforts to-date in seeming input from over thirty (30) communities and/or organizations; and public meetings held earlier this year.  Next steps toward project implementation would include securing funding and local support; and then the design and engineering phases specific to the corridor and its design; with each of those phases including increased community and stakeholder engagement.  Mr. Carlson advised that they had received great support and interest from Roseville to-date; and anticipated that to continue as the project moved forward.


Discussion included whether the Rosedale Transit Hub would continue or if other alternate locations would be provided if the Rosedale site did not continue; differentiating between the hub and park and ride elements; strategic location of the Rosedale Mall for local buses as well as transport to and from the mall; and rationale in not including the Rice Street corridor in studies, with the original study implemented in 2008 and Rice Street not identified at that time with sentiments received by the Metropolitan Council to do so from municipalities as well as Ramsey County.


Further discussion included how routes and their connections were prioritized based on demand and available routing options; competitive nature in providing transit options and timing for those options for customers; and inclusion of transit-oriented development along corridors (e.g. NE Diagonal) in place in local cities that could facilitate development of the Transitway as well, with planning efforts by the Metropolitan Council including local comprehensive plans for intensification and transit development and contributing to baseline growth in ridership in modeling efforts.


Additional discussion included recognizing that all transit riders begin as pedestrians and the need to provide safe connections and traffic flow, with pedestrian features updated in overall packages as improvements are made and older traffic control systems replaced.


Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Carlson for his presentation.


14.         Public Hearings


15.         Business Items (Action Items)


16. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Discuss Bids and Timing for Fire Station Project Bid Package #1

Chief O’Neill and other members of project team were present to discuss results of Bid Package #1 (site/earth work, utilities, building foundation, and paving); and to provide an update on the timing of the project as it relates to pending litigation.


The team presented an overview summary of the base bid and alternates, with final bids coming in at 20% under budget, and twenty-one (21) bids received for the three (3) contracts.  The team advised that they would make recommendations to the City Council at their meeting next Monday, following their review of the apparent low bids; with Bid Package #2 anticipated to come out within the next week or so.


Discussion included the sunset date on bids ninety (90) days from the bid date of April 10, 2012; timing of contracts related to pending litigation resolution; preference for two (2) alternates (training plaza behind the building and concrete in back of the station off Woodhill versus blacktop); bid review process and meetings with low bid contractors to ensure they have completely represented the work flow; and the favorable number of bids received.


Schedule with Appeals Court Scenario

Chief O’Neill provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, outlining a revised schedule adjusted for the litigation issues into August of 2012.  If the litigation resulted in appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Chief O’Neill advised that  “Plan B” scenario would need to be implemented, with the schedule adjusted in the future accordingly.


Chief O’Neill addressed the project timing based on legal ramifications of the litigation as well as how long the bids were viable, with timing of the litigation already having affected mobilization of the site, since the building was anticipated for enclosure by November 30, 2012, but now there would be potential cost increases for heating and other temporary issues to be consideration.


The team noted that delays could also impact the realization of material costs increasing as the market and economy improved, with increases already found for aluminum and glass at over 20% in the last two (2) years, and 14% increase in steel; and emphasized the benefits of keeping the process moving forward. 

The team noted that a delay of several months this year was minimal compared to delaying into 2013, with that having a much more significant impact on overall costs.

Councilmember Johnson noted the litigation action having already cost the citizens of Roseville hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Chief O’Neill noted that final specifications were being reviewed now with Bid Package #2 available next Monday and incorporating the majority of the rest of the building with the exception of furniture, fixtures and technology.


At the request of Councilmember Johnson as to the possibility of extending bid packages, the team responded that in the current marketplace they felt contractors would continue to honor their bids; however, cautioned that this would and could not be an indefinite delay.


Chief O’Neill advised that future consideration may be needed in how to proceed if litigation results did not support the City, with 2.5 years already invested in the project, as well as funds invested, to-date. 


City Manager Malinen concurred, noting that if the City missed this construction season, he anticipated an approximate 12% or $1 million increase in construction costs to build the same facility. 


Councilmember Johnson personally opined that, as long as Roseville citizens continued to elect him, the Fire Department would continue to have his personal support for the project; further opining that he couldn’t wait to see the project come to fruition.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation to the team for their project schedule; opining that the City continued to have an option of doing a referendum on the project, further opining that residents would be supportive.


Chief O’Neill advised that this was “Plan B,” and at the encouragement of Councilmember McGehee, assured Councilmembers that the team was already at work on possible lead times required to have a local ballot referendum available for the Secretary of State if that was needed.


Mayor Roe thanked the team for their presentation.


b.            Discuss Clean-up Assistance Policy Regarding Sanitary Sewer Backups

Due to a glitch in processing the packet materials, Mayor Roe apologized to the City Council and public in inadvertently including an incorrect policy, and receipt tonight at the bench of a handout of the correct draft policy. Mayor Roe advised that the purpose tonight was for discussion only, and assured all that the proposed policy would come before the City Council and public in the future for further analysis and discussion.



Public Works Superintendent Duane Schwartz introduced the City’s Assistant Finance Director in charge of loss control, Brenda Davitt.


Mr. Schwartz apologized for the error in the packet materials originating from his department; and reiterated Mayor Roe’s comments that the purpose of this initial discussion was to receive City Council input to staff as to whether they should continue to proceed along these lines.  Mr. Schwartz noted that there were several items still pending additional staff research, including backflow devices, the permit process and code requirements for major work on sanitary sewer systems, as well as additional insurance information as previously requested by the City Council.


Discussion included benefit of having a City contractor versus private contractor in ensuring a timely clean-up to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents, with the City being able to positively identify and control those costs through a contracted service, and anticipated bid process in seeking clean-up contractors serving periodically on an on-call basis and providing competitive pricing at the lowest possible cost for all parties.  It was noted that this process would be similar to that used by other communities with such programs in place; and staff estimating that the annual cost of such a contract would be $3,000 - $8,000, and hopefully offset some of the time currently spent by staff on damage claims.


Further discussion included what would be involved in such a clean-up from a mediation standpoint to ensure the health, safety and welfare of residents versus cost of materials involved in finished lower levels; and how to identify what was and what was not covered.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Davitt estimated that the typical cost, based on staff’s experience to-date, would be $5,000 to $10,000 depending on how much of the lower level of a home was finished.


Councilmember McGehee suggested further discussion consider whether a limit of $5,000 per incident or per resident should be applied; ensuring that competent and timely removal and disinfection was provided, but not remodeling areas.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz estimated that most episodes rarely saw more than 1-2 inches of back-up, and mostly affected carpets and floor coverings, not sheetrock and insulation materials.


Councilmember Johnson noted that basically there were two (2) types of contractors: that of clean-up remediation services, and those services provided by a construction service, with the City clearly needing to define their involvement only in the clean-up remediation for a lower level and then departing, and allowing the homeowner to pursue construction services.


Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would need to further research remediation services and what they would or should provide; whether materials were torn off or not, and how their disposal was handled and whose responsibility handling and disposal would be.


Mayor Roe noted that this was a major consideration in the discussion, as the City Council focused on the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and how and where those lines were drawn, with handling and disposal an integral part of that health, safety and welfare element.  Mayor Roe also noted the need to address isolated, as well as larger events, and cost-share responsibilities.


Ms. Davitt noted that this policy would come into play before the homeowner’s insurance; with the homeowner insurance available for replacement of items.


Councilmember Johnson opined that a typical rider covers $5,000 for replacement.


Mayor Roe questioned if the City Council wanted to consider commercial properties, or strictly residential properties.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he was inclined to implement a policy on the residential side and see how that worked before considering the commercial aspect.


In her eleven (11) year tenure with the City, Ms. Davitt advised that the City had yet to receive any commercial claims to-date.


Councilmember Johnson responded to Mr. Schwartz’ previous question during his summary as to when the timeline for implementing such a policy; and spoke in support of making the policy retroactive to June of 2011.


Mayor Roe noted the need to implement specific language for any potential reimbursement for retroactive clean-up costs.


Councilmember McGehee suggested a special amendment to the policy to partially compensate people who were inadvertently impacted by the summer of 2011 storms and back-up of the Metropolitan Council’s trunk line that runs through Roseville, and at no fault of their own of the City of Roseville.


Mayor Roe suggested a maximum limit to be determined by the City Council, with the City Council retaining the power to determine limits for larger or major events, potentially based on available funding, but providing some flexibility.  Mayor Roe noted that this may require an emergency meeting of the City Council at such a time.


Councilmember Willmus requested additional and future discussion of Sections E and F of the draft policy.


City Manager Malinen noted that commercial properties would potentially fund such a policy, on an almost equal basis, and if excluded from coverage, would receive no benefit from it.


Mayor Roe suggested that the fee structure differential may need to be established to facilitate that issue.


With Councilmember Willmus suggesting that commercial properties receive an adjustment if they paid more in fees, Mayor Roe noted that commercial property claims could also be considerable higher than residential claims.


Councilmember McGehee opined that $50,000 as a suggested limit seemed low to her, since the LMCIT limit was $250,000 per event during their recent presentation, and as suggested by Councilmember Willmus, if the policy ran for several years with the residential fee structure building up, a fund could be built up and money reallocated as appropriate for outstanding events.


Councilmember Johnson opined that good ideas had been brought up for discussion related to this policy; however, his interest was in the benefit it provided to citizens of Roseville, showing that it was a caring community, and encouraged that the City err on the side of the more conservative amount, opining that $50,000 per event still seemed high to him; and suggested that the first year of implementation take a more conservative approach.  Councilmember Johnson expressed his pride in the Roseville community and its care of its citizens and neighbors, and opined that this policy was a good step in the right direction.


Mayor Roe suggested the need for more feedback from staff on the limit and whether implementation made sense from a lower or higher standpoint; potentially talking about per clean-up dollar amounts and the need for more analysis of what is covered.  Mayor Roe stated that he wasn’t observing much interest in the commercial side at this point.


Mayor Roe suggested, from a language point of view in the policy, that emphasis of the next draft of the policy be placed on the health, safety and welfare aspects as the City’s main concern; with admission of liability handled through the LMCIT, but not necessary to  repeatedly restate it in the policy.  Mayor Roe noted the need, as previously noted by Mr. Schwartz, to provide additional information on backflow prevention devices and code enforcement regulations, and whether to add those statements into the policy.


Ms. Davitt noted that, in discussions with LMCIT adjusters, even if a claim was denied, residents felt some satisfaction that the City had helped them out to some degree with such a policy in place.  Ms. Davitt noted that such a policy could help residents get the back-ups cleaned up as soon as possible.


Mayor Roe noted the ongoing educational efforts needed in encouraging residents to contact the City first if they experienced a back-up before calling a private plumber, to ensure that the problem is identified immediately before more time elapsed and further damage or delay occurred.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:29 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:34 pm.

c.            Discuss Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy

City Engineer Debra Bloom and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (TMP) coming from the cooperative efforts and ongoing discussions with staff and the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation (PWET) Commission. 


Ms. Bloom reviewed several recent examples of how such a TMP could have worked in Roseville (Wheeler and Dale Streets), and typical funding through assessments under Chapter 429 of MN State Statute.


Ms. Bloom reviewed differences in “benefited” and “affected” areas; various tools available; impacts to other areas streets if a problem was fixed, but created problems elsewhere, and how the TMP was set up to measure and gauge impacts and mitigate problem areas.  Ms. Bloom reviewed priority considerations and resulting scoring in the TMP as part of the process (pages 5 and 7); and input from the Police Department and how speeding problems were defined, identified and enforced, as well as funding and other considerations in addressing those issues.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included ranking before and after temporary traffic control mitigation measures; investment benefits; strategies and tools for Minnesota State Aid (MSA) and collectors, as well as potentially truncating those roadways; and staff’s intent in the TMP that there can be no negative impact on other roadways, with the TMP addressing existing traffic problems and only certain measures considered on higher-volume roadways.


Further discussion included consistency of this TMP with other communities in having 51% of a neighborhood support mitigation efforts; templates from the Cities of Blaine and Edina TMP’s used as a basis for this draft Roseville TMP; the petition process itself and neighborhood understanding and education on defined neighborhood costs in the Chapter 429 process; and whether some flexibility should be provided for aesthetic considerations for a neighborhood, as well as health, safety and welfare considerations.


Ms. Bloom noted current concerns of staff with the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) and ability to continue funding mill and overlay projects at the level the City had become used to, with additional challenges found annually in maintaining that status quo.  Ms. Bloom advised that it may be necessary in the near future to eat into the capital or consider scaling back on the program of maintaining streets, and impacts long-term for that trust fund.  Ms. Bloom noted that the PMP operated on the pavement condition index (PCI) and if the City Council, as ultimate decision-makers, chose to honor additional requests for aesthetic or traffic management items, funding of those items would need to be given serious consideration.


Mr. Schwartz advised that this was a policy question for the City Council: whether to add this TMP to a major maintenance infrastructure fund hindering existing maintenance issues; or find other ways to fund it such as through the tax levy or other source, and the level of City support for any of those options.


Mayor Roe suggested consideration of a fund for the TMP, similar to that used for the PMP.


Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Bloomington had such a fund, identifying projects from one year for the upcoming year, and gauging the level of City support accordingly.  Ms. Bloom noted that, at the direction of the City Council, staff could investigate their program further.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee were supportive of further investigation.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee in referencing the fairly high unit costs listed in the chart on page 10 of the draft TMP, Ms. Bloom advised that the unit prices were taken from the Institute of Traffic Engineers data, as noted in the key, and were representative of actual costs the City would incur.  Ms. Bloom advised that these unit prices were also consistent with code and emergency access requirements for emergency vehicles; however, since they were only estimates could vary considerably in magnitude with each case being unique.


Councilmember Willmus, referencing funding sources, noted that a number of property owners living on county roadways would not receive a benefit from such a TMP, however, they would see a potential for increased traffic levels in certain areas; and asked that staff further investigate a funding source for those areas.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus clarified that he was interested in a 75/25% funding option versus a city-wide levy.


Mayor Roe questioned how to determine which properties were assessed: those “affected” versus those “benefitting.”


Ms. Bloom noted that this was the rationale in providing the two distinctions, and read the actual definition of “affected” on page 15 of the draft policy; while noting that sometimes “affected” and “benefitted” may be the same.


Discussion ensued, using the previous examples of Wheeler and Dale Streets, for impacts to larger areas as measures were implemented, and overall costs to a broader area; temporary options versus permanent mitigation; need to understand the issues before providing a response by using the criteria in an established policy consistently to evaluate concerns and issues; potential liability impacts on temporary versus permanent improvements; some temporary mitigation (e.g. speed tables) note lasting through a winter season; and whether implementation of such a TMP and related procedures (page 4) will increase staff needs or if current staffing levels can facilitate such a TMP.


Ms. Bloom advised that staff anticipated only being able to manage 1-2 such requests annually, given the other workload items they handled.


Mayor Roe noted the need to emphasize the ranking process and perhaps look to other Joint Powers Agreements for additional staff resources.


Ms. Bloom advised that staff time and expertise was built into the TMP in the criteria and procedure, with some studies possible in-house with staff’s expertise, and others requiring outside consultants if beyond staff’s capability or time constraints.  Ms. Bloom noted the need to clearly understand that those costs would be applied to a project, some of which could be significant.


Mayor Roe noted if costs were incurred before doing a temporary measure, those costs may need to be floated by the City for a considerable amount of time; and advised that this needed to be part of the consideration as well.


Councilmember McGehee opined that, similar to the sewer policy just discussed, there was a tremendous demand and of great importance to residents in the City for such a policy as the TMP, and further opined that this was a good start to this policy, with a number of hurdles identified before getting to the need for any study, also making it unreasonable to accomplish more than 1-2 annually.


Ms. Bloom noted that, in staff’s discussions with the PWET Commission, one strategy or tool was sidewalks, something staff received a number of requests about, particularly addressing pedestrian and safety issues; and from a funding perspective, this process would need to be followed.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz advised that the PWET Commission had yet to discuss funding mechanisms in any great detail, focusing more on the Chapter 429 process instead.


Mayor Roe noted that the PWET Commission was currently reviewing the City’s Assessment Policy more broadly.


Councilmember Willmus asked that the TMP be part of that discussion as well; along with ongoing maintenance and models employed by other communities immediately adjacent to Roseville.


Mayor Roe concurred, and asked that staff consult with the Cities of Blaine and Edina on their experience upon implementing the TMP; opining that this may inform the City of Roseville how to react to this and its potential implementation.


Councilmember McGehee recognized the ongoing work and recommendations coming forward to the City Council from the PWET Commission, and thanked them for their work on behalf of the City and prompting good discussions at the City Council level.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that all of the City Council’s advisory commissions provided good product.


d.            Discuss Uniform Commission Code

City Manager Malinen briefly summarized the proposed ordinance drafted by staff and detailed in the RCA dated April 16, 2012, establishing common themes and structures for advisory commissions.  Mr. Malinen suggested adopting this uniform code for general guidance for each commission.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not excited about how this recommendation was presented for a variety of reasons, and questioned what initiated this work, since it obviously had a financial impact based on staff time and effort, even if not defined; and questioned what the initial problem was that staff was attempting to fix.


City Manager Malinen advised that initially, the inconsistencies had been uncovered as the Human Rights Commission (HRC) considered changing their meeting nights; and unilateral decisions were considered about whom was responsible for such decisions, the advisory commissions or the City Council; with no consistent guidance found by staff to this simple question.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she had no problem making the code consistent for commissions; however, she supported seeking input from each commission and bringing their comments forward to the City Council, rather than the City Council dictating to them.  Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the commissions bringing forward their rules and guidelines, and how they saw their mission, since they were the ones selected through the application and interview process to perform that function for the City; and were capable of running their own meetings.


City Manager Malinen clarified that he was not suggesting otherwise.


Councilmember Willmus opined that he would be interested in receiving feedback from Chairpersons and Department Liaisons to each commission; however, he noted that individual advisory commissions were carrying out a charge set out by the City Council.  Councilmember Willmus referenced the spreadsheet outlining all advisory commissions to the City Council, created and provided by Mayor Roe as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereofCouncilmember Willmus noted that this clearly laid out the parameters, and suggested that it be used as an overlay for the new ordinance to see consistencies and inconsistencies.  Councilmember Willmus noted that there shouldn’t be much difference in the governance of respective advisory commissions.


Councilmember Johnson noted that this may be a direct result of a requested action item he identified during recent work session meetings.  Councilmember Johnson advised that his rationale in this request was based on the need for clarity; and when he currently looked across the scheme and realm of advisory commissions, he was cognizant that some of them were pared down and others more aggressive.  Being unable to attend all advisory commission meetings, Councilmember Johnson noted that he relies on periodic reports or meeting minutes from them to follow-up on their progress.  Councilmember Johnson used, as an example, the Civic Engagement Task Force, a subcommittee of the Human Rights Commission, and lack of any reports to-date from this group.  Councilmember Johnson advised that this gives him pause to question what was actually occurring; and emphasized the need for them to communicate more effectively with the City Council, and ultimately the public.  Councilmember Johnson commended the Parks and Recreation Commission for their communication efforts.  Councilmember Johnson noted his need to more fully understand the reporting hierarchy of commissions (e.g. Police Civil Service Commission) and who they actually reported to: the City Council or a Department.  Councilmember Johnson advised that this was part of his rationale in seeking this action step.


Mayor Roe noted that it was in the City Council’s work plan.


Mayor Roe advised that one of his goals, since first coming onto the City Council, was to make the different ordinances addressing advisory commissions more consistent from an organizational point, thus his development of the chart provided as a bench handout.  Mayor Roe noted that some were more detailed, while others remained silent in some organizational areas.  Mayor Roe referenced line 46 of page 2 of the draft ordinance as an example, with some addressing the number of members, while others did not.  Mayor Roe also noted that the City Council’s recent adoption of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order was not addressed in any of the current ordinances, and suggested that, since this may change in the future, language should indicate that advisory commissions use the same Rules of Order as the City Council.  Mayor Roe advised that he had other suggested language revisions that he would provide directly to staff.  From his point of view, Mayor Roe opined that there was nothing changing in the ordinance other than moving items to a generic organizational framework, while duties and functions remained intact.  Mayor Roe referenced lines 322-325 as an example of an area of concern in which he wanted to ensure that nothing was lost in the process from a technical or operational standpoint.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of an overall, general organizational ordinance as a step in the right direction; and expressed support for letting respective advisory commissions weigh in with their comments, as well as alerting the City Council of any other inconsistencies or problem areas of which they were aware.  However, Mayor Roe clarified that advisory commissions were set up organizationally by the City Council and received direction from the City Council.


Councilmember McGehee opined that she would like to see another topic in the section and provided to and filtered through Chairpersons and Commissions, using the spreadsheet and answering questions and tied into consistent language, such as a purpose statement for each commission that they could lift or modify.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated her preference that a working copy be provided from commissions to the City Council.


Mayor Roe questioned if it was Councilmember McGehee’s intent to re-open purpose statements for advisory commissions or just how they were organized and operated.


Councilmember McGehee responded that if duties needed editing, or if they needed to be repurposed or enhanced, or their duties altered, it could then be done.


Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council should start with the organizational aspect, with staff’s draft ordinance providing an overarching ordinance, and deleting inconsistent or inapplicable language, not intended to change the purpose of any advisory commission.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated his support for a quick review by advisory commission Chairpersons and their staff liaisons; and had identified no other glaring red flags.


Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Willmus’ comments; and spoke in support of a City Council consensus on the organizational side of things; with a separate discussion on what the City Council consensus was related to the respective realm of advisory commissions and their responsibilities.  Councilmember Johnson noted that they ultimately reported to the City Council, and their agendas needed to be steered accordingly in that direction.   Councilmember Johnson noted that the information gathering and discussions provided to the City Council was essential to their decision-making and provided much more depth to that decision-making.


Mayor Roe indicated that he would work with staff on an updated overarching organizational ordinance, and as advisory commissions came before the City Council over the next few months for their annual joint meetings, they could weigh in on the organizational ordinance, after which time the ordinance could go through the enactment process. 


Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of Mayor Roe’s proposed process; noting that this spoke to the concerns he had personally heard form one advisory commission chair.


14.       City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.


City Manager Malinen advised that the Walmart land use request would not be considered at the April 23, 2012 regular City Council meeting, as a petition had been received for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW); with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and staff working on the process.


Councilmembers Willmus and McGehee requested staff to provide estimated numbers and potential funding sources if the City were to acquire this parcel.


Discussion ensued regarding the EAW process and 60-day review period for land use cases; with City Attorney Gaughan advising that the 60-day rule was “tolled” pending the EAW process.


i.                                                                Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember McGehee expressed interest in ensuring that the Nextdoor item be included for future discussions, receiving assurances from Mayor Roe that it would be on a future agenda.



ii.                Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:44 pm.


Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.      

            Nays: None.